A few years ago, Nnedi Okorafor won the World Fantasy Award. Okorafor is a Nigerian-American writer. The World Fantasy Award is a bust of HP Lovecraft. You can guess where this is going, because Lovecraft was a flamingly awful racist. How awful? Read the poem at that link and suppress your gag reflex.
Which obviously causes some conflict. Okorafor wrote to China Mieville for advice, since he’d also won the award, and he wrote back with a suggestion.
So where does that leave the World Fantasy Award? Well, in my case, I have always done something very specific and simple. I consider the award inextricable from but not reducible to Lovecraft himself. Therefore, I was very honoured to receive the award as representative of a particular field of literature. And the award itself, the statuette of the man himself? I put it out of sight, in my study, where only I can see it, and I have turned it to face the wall. So I am punishing the little fucker like the malevolent clown he was, I can look at it and remember the honour, and above all I am writing behind Lovecraft’s back.
It seems to me that the better long term solution would be to replace the bust on the award with someone a little less objectionable — there’s actually a petition to make the award honor Octavia Butler instead. There are the familiar arguments that his deep and terrible personal flaws shouldn’t taint his literary contributions, and I can see that…I can still enjoy Lovecraft’s writing, while deploring the man. But the problem is that the award specifically honors the man Lovecraft, not the abstraction of his work, or the genre.
It would be less objectionable and more appropriate to have the statue represent Cthulhu, rather than Lovecraft. Except for the little problem that all the recipients would be driven mad.
It’s like loving Wagner’s operas without loving the nasty little anti-Semite who composed them. The man and the music can’t really be teased apart. I’ve read excuses that Wagner was only theoretically prejudiced against Jews, writing screeds against them and their supposedly baneful influence on music while at the same time recruiting Hermann Levi to conduct the premier of his mock-Christian “Parsifal.” That just proves Wagner wanted the best conductor he could get and was willing to “overlook” certain details (although he supposedly joked that Levi should consider getting baptized before the premier). Both Lovecraft and Wagner will continue to be famous and people will continue to enjoy their works, but the stain of their prejudices will not be washed away.
I’m also a Lovecraft fan, but his objectionable views make it hard to recommend him. Lovecraft’s racism extends into his work, from the pervasive themes of degeneracy to the name of that damned cat in “Rats in the Walls”.
Maybe it’s time to change the face on the statue … but to somebody further back in the past, like Lord Dunsany, Mary Shelley, or Ambrose Bierce. Or perhaps a contemporary like Robert E. Howard or Clark Ashton Smith.
Good points, PZ, but it’s Octavia Butler, not Olivia, that was suggested as an alternative to Lovecraft.
Ug. I love lovecraft’s tales so much. The man, not so much. It’s a sticky wicket, to be sure. I’ve been exposed to some great art that was created by terrible people. I can still enjoy the art while condemning the artist (or at least, their views/actions).
That said, I also think that, unless it is an award specifically related to H.P.’s work, there are far better people to make the award bust after. Or even, not make it a bust at all.
Lovecraft was highly influential and basically invented a genre. OTOH, besides being a racist, he was also a terrible writer. I find him much more readable in translation, since the translators are often good writers. Butler was an excellent writer and a highly influential figure. Change it honor her. Or, if that’s not practical for whatever reason, then go with PZ’s idea of making it a statue of Cthulu. Can’t drive anyone any madder than the awful visage already on the statue.
I switched to rooting for the monsters at that point in that particular story.
I can certainly agree with this sentiment. I have fond memories of reading Lovecraft at the age of 13 or 14. I’ve since found more enjoyable writers but I still like reading Lovecraft and respect his contributions to the genre. That said, I find myself handing out enough caveats regarding the racists views he places in his works that it sometimes makes people less enthusiastic when I try to introduce them to his work.
I can’t back replacing him with Butler specifically simply because I’m not familiar with her work, however, I’d be fine with replacing Lovecraft with another writer. If people in the know think she’d be the right person for it then I say more power to them.
It’s actually much harder to find traces of racism in Lovecraft’s fiction than people generally claim.
(I’m even dubious about the infamous black cat… after all, it’s a beloved cat, his name is not an insult.)
Unfortunately, once you go to his non-fiction, it’s awfully easy. The atrocious “poem” mentioned must be one of his all time lows, along with a few letters.
But ultimately, what matters here is that Nnedi Okorafor doesn’t wish to be awarded with the image of a man who would almost certainly have despised her because of her color.
Of course, some people can call her “hysteric” because of this, or “over-sensitive”, or “over-reacting”, or talk about “politically correct outrage”. They will patiently explain that she’s wrong, that she’s disregarding context, etc.
Hey, haven’t we heard this kind of stuff before… ?
Also, that statuette is simply ugly. It should be replaced, not with the face of someone else, but with a symbol in relation with fantasy in general (why not a dragon?).
That’s the long and the short of it.
If your award insults the very people you wish to honour, you need to change it
Christophe Thill:
Umm, The Horror at Red Hook?
Maybe they should just start making the bust out of black metal.
One can then imagine he is being tormented.
Or make it out of that stuff they use for stress balls, or like a Stretch Armstrong. I imagine knotting Lovecraft’s legs around his neck might be quite relaxing.
Well, he could just laugh at the statue every day. Gloating could be fun.
It’s kind of like how they changed the name of the street that runs by Emancipation Park in Houston to Dowling Street back in the 1800’s in a direct effort to disrespect black people by naming the street after a local Civil War officer. Some African-Americans want to change the street name, others are content to know that almost no one knows who Dick Dowling was while more people know who civil rights leader Jack Yates was. BTW, Yates was the founder of Emancipation Park.
Yes, “Red Hook”, for sure.
But it’s clear that HPL’s views (and gut feelings) evolved during his life (and this is an early work). In “Hauter of the dark”, he shows a crowd of Italians (for whom he used quite a few derogatory terms when he was younger) courageously facing horror with nothing but candles for protection. After he visits Québec, he starts to think than French-Canadians, after all, might not be superstitious Untermenschen, but sensitive builders of beautiful architecture (kind of ultimate criterium for him). In a letter, he muses that the fact that there are so many Jewish artists and scientists must mean something, that they can’t be a purely evil people. And the Old Ones in “Mountains of madness”? However weird and unpleasant-looking, “they were men”…
Of course, there’s one point on which his views never changed. Never could he see Black people as really, fully human. I guess the roots of that strain of racism were planted too deep.
Christophe Thill:
(apologies for wall o’text, I’m failing at inserting paragraph breaks here.)
I don’t think it was a deliberate insult; I think quite a few people of the era gave similar names to black pets without having the aim of offending black people. That doesn’t necessarily make it innocuous.
But even leaving that aside, I find it hard to open HPL’s work without tripping over evidence of racism. In some of his stories it’s there in plain sight, directed at real-life groups. “The Street” begins with a casual mention of genocide against the local Indians, then laments the arrival of stinking foreigners: “swarthy, sinister faces with furtive eyes and odd features, whose owners spoke unfamiliar words and placed signs in known and unknown characters upon most of the musty houses… a vast band of terrorists, who on a designated day were to launch an orgy of slaughter for the extermination of America and of all the fine old traditions which The Street had loved. Handbills and papers fluttered about filthy gutters; handbills and papers printed in many tongues and in many characters, yet all bearing messages of crime and rebellion. In these writings the people were urged to tear down the laws and virtues that our fathers had exalted; to stamp out the soul of the old America—the soul that was bequeathed through a thousand and a half years of Anglo-Saxon freedom, justice, and moderation. It was said that the swart men who dwelt in The Street and congregated in its rotting edifices were the brains of a hideous revolution; that at their word of command many millions of brainless, besotted beasts would stretch forth their noisome talons from the slums of a thousand cities, burning, slaying, and destroying till the land of our fathers should be no more.”
“Medusa’s Coil” is particularly bad: Marcellne turns out to be a witch whose hair is a malign life-form in itself, but the terrifying-to-Lovecraft twist ending is that “though in deceitfully slight proportion, Marceline was a negress”. (That last line seems to have been excised from some printings, for some reason…)
Or let’s look at his most famous work: “The region now entered by the police was one of traditionally evil repute, substantially unknown and untraversed by white men… there must have been nearly a hundred mongrel celebrants in the throng… the prisoners all proved to be men of a very low, mixed-blooded, and mentally aberrant type. Most were seamen, and a sprinkling of Negroes and mulattoes, largely West Indians or Brava Portuguese from the Cape Verde Islands, gave a colouring of voodooism to the heterogeneous cult. But before many questions were asked, it became manifest that something far deeper and older than Negro fetishism was involved. Degraded and ignorant as they were, the creatures held with surprising consistency to the central idea of their loathsome faith.”
There are others like that where the racism is visible right there on the surface; the less Anglo-Saxon a people are, the more likely they are to be treated as corrupt, physically and spiritually. But even when he’s dealing with fictional creatures, it’s hard not to read something like “The Shadow Over Innsmouth” without suspecting that HPL’s views on miscegenation played a part. And if you’re familiar with the mindset of 1920s-30s eugenetics, there’s even more to be found in the sort of human degeneracy presented in “The Lurking Fear”.
Oh, a Cthulhu statuette would be amazing. Or an Elder Thing, the starfish-like beings from the Mountains of Madness.
@PZ
“I can still enjoy Lovecraft’s writing, while deploring the man.”
I really like a lot of his writings, but it is kind of scary how often his immense racism seeps into those works and that’s when I start taking even more issue with him. So often do his books feature “abominable halfbreeds” or “degenerates” of “mixed races”. It’s less troublesome when he’s talking about Human-Deep One hybrids to me (probably because a) Deep Ones don’t exist and b) I’m kind of bigoted against them, anyway), but far more often he employs the “mixed race”-thing for “despicable half-breed” human foreigners as either the servants or sailors or workers etc. of some more important character. It’s bothering me quite a bit, this notion of the subhuman half-breed worker class. And I find it interesting how he seems to hold particular scorn for such people of mixed races, when he seems “more charitable” towards other races when they are at least “pure to their kind”, you know. I think that speaks to some ideas about “racial purity” and keeping the races “cleanly separated” and the “blood lines untainted” and all this racist, white supremacist crap.
So how is this different from separating “Enders Game” from Orson Scott Card’s views? Or how about Richard Dawkin’s mysogony (sp) from his scientific works? What was that you said, PZ, “No More Heroes”? So at what point does someone’s personal views make their professional works distasteful? I’m not asking for a line in the sand, I know it’s personal. I won’t read OSC’s books because of his views. If someone else doesn’t mind, that’s their choice. In any case, I think it’s a question we should ask ourselves.
We definitely need to change the award.
While we’re at it, we should erase any awards given that include the likeness or mentioning of Edgar Allen Poe (read his Arthur Gordon Pym novel for evidence of his racism) or Samuel Clemmins (aka Mark Twain) who used the N-word frequently in at least one off his novels.
In fact, Thomas Jefferson, writer of the Declaration Of Independence, and a founding father of the United States owned slaves. We should eliminate any awards or honors given in his name. While we’re at it, we should change any street, school, or public structures named in his honor.
I don’t see the problem; to be an interesting author requires a degree of madness anyway. We’re not talking about writing textbooks here!
It is beyond dispute that Lovecraft was staggeringly racist[1]. Not just for us in 2014, but for his day, too. However, I think the reaction people have to this is quite odd. There’s a lot of anger, a lot of hand-wringing, a lot of demands that Lovecraft be somehow punished for this: let’s turn his statue around, let’s change the statue, let’s excoriate him postmortem, anything to ritually distance ourselves from him.
Thing is, I think the more appropriate response to his undeniably odious opinion is to pity him. I mean, he’s no villain. He never attacked anyone. His feeble advocacy for racism was so cartoonish that it is unlikely he ever induced anyone to be racist—and, certainly, this thread seems full of folk who have read his stories without much damage to their moral character. All Lovecraft managed to do with the burden of his racism is to make his own life worse—considerably worse.
Certainly, make sure his work is presented in an appropriate context, and certainly, when needed stand firmly against the content of his racism, but don’t hate the man. Feel sorry for him instead.
As for the statue, if it is so offensive to some that it is simply unbearable that it continue to be Lovecraft, then fine. It’s not worth the suffering of others. I would have been doubtlessly hated by Lovecraft for my origin, and I don’t find it objectionable. But I’m not the measure of all things—obviously—and I allow that others may have a much stronger reaction for perfectly reasonable, understandable, and justifiable reasons only some of which I am capable of fully imagining.
But if it is bearable, I would suggest that it remain as it is now. For better or for worse, Lovecraft was the progenitor and template for a genre. It’s not for nothing that the adjective ‘Lovecraftian’ has such currency. Octavia Butler, for all her sterling qualities, isn’t emblematic. We can argue why, and her race is a part of it, certainly, but she just… isn’t. It’s not even remotely fair that she isn’t, of course, but there you go.
[1] Actually, not just conventionally racist. I’m white, but he’d have found me equally as repugnant—I’m one of those South European interlopers he spoke of as just as depraved, deformed, &c as any African. In this wise, Lovecraft was, actually, of his own time. The definition of race was narrower, and the beginning of the twentieth century was a great time for paeans to the supremacy of “Nordics.” Consider that it was just this attitude that was used to paint Tom Buchanan as an asshat in the Great Gatsby.
Disclaimer: Being an aforementioned South European interloper, English is my second (technically third) language. Please allow for mistakes and inexactitudes in the above.
Alverant, one obvious and important difference is that HPL is dead. When I buy his books, I’m not enriching the guy. In the same way, I can watch Triumph of the Will, but I’m not going to buy a Roman Polanski DVD.
Moggie, so when OSC dies will you watch “Enders Game”?
Alverant @ 17
As Moggie pointed out above, HLP is dead. His works are now mostly in the public domain and he’s not in the position to collect a red cent from them. Also, unlike Card or Dawkins, we can’t now hope to convince him that he was wrong. Yes, it maybe a task with an improbable goal, but one can always hope that there is someway of reaching these two men before they die.
But what would you suggest?
Honestly, an honorary bas-relief of Cthulu would be a way cooler prize to receive anyway.
Actually, the more I think about it, it’s not as silly a solution as it seems. It shifts the attention to the now-iconic tropes that Lovecraft was responsible for and away from the man himself. And really, what fantasy writer wouldn’t want a tentacled abomination to glare balefully on their mantle?
In my view, the big difference is that Lovecraft is long dead. There’s no way to change his mind now, and as Christophe Thill mentions at 14, HPL did seem like he had the potential to change it. OSC and Dawkins don’t have that excuse; they’re alive and have every resource available to them but still persist in bigotry. What’s more, they are still actively doing harm and supporting their works contributes money to their ongoing harmful actions.
Living in the UK, I thought and started to write that the word in question was not considered derogatory at the time. Then I checked with Wikipedia, to find that it certainly was derogatory in the American South. Live and learn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger
I always thought that the statue given as a prize ought to reflect the work that won the prize.
Make work for artists!
With regards to Orson Scott Card– I’ve found my perception of his work has been changed after finding out more about the man’s personal views. Mainly, when I first read the books in high school I thought they were supposed to be presenting moral ambiguities and anti-heroes; later I found out that Card thinks he’s writing about moral certainties and heroes. :-/ Of course, the sudden appearance of a screed against same-sex marriage in one of the later Ender’s Shadow books (I can’t even remember which one; I haven’t re-read it since) tipped me off as well, but those books weren’t out when I was in high school.
I don’t plan on seeing the Ender’s Game movie ever, but I generally avoid movies based on books unless I have it on trusted authority that they’re really really good.
As noted multiple times, the main issue with purchasing the works of deplorable people is that doing so supports and enables them. Getting there works in a way that doesn’t give them money is fine. With Lovecraft, this isn’t a problem: his works are public domain. You can probably find an ebook for free. With the rest, you end up in a position where either you must pay for the work, or steal it.
Also, I’m not sure how any piece including the sentence “I can still enjoy Lovecraft’s writing, while deploring the man,” contradicts the idea of “no more heroes”; it seems like a pretty clear example of not having a hero.
Alverant:
I suspect not. I read it (before discovering how unpleasant OSC is), and found it meh. It didn’t leave me wanting more.
Personally I’d be a little offended to be awarded a bust of HPL because he was a raging bigot _and_ a terrible writer. A great imagination, with some ideas that have gone on to inspire legions, but his prose is _terrible_. Endless winding tentacles of unrelated adjectives reaching from one contextless void to another. Yawn.
This will, of course, stir up the folks who genuinely like his writing. That’s fine; everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and enjoyment of books is nothing if not subjective. Lovecraft just irks me because so many people who claim to be fans because they love the ideas have never read any of the original works, and would probably find them boring and tedious if they did.
@devnll 30– I honestly was a little taken aback by the hackiness of HPL’s writing the first time I ever actually read it! He overuses a handful of adjectives, eg. cyclopean, squamous, eldricht, non-euclidean, the last of which leaves me thinking “You keep saying that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.” Plus, relying too much on a “nameless horror” gets old pretty quickly.
In (literary!* not personal!) defense of the writing, one thing: encountering the origins of common tropes can feel strangely flat or predictable. People have this reaction to a lot of classic movies, for example, and I definitely had that moment the first time I read “The Call of Cthulu”: I thought the story felt really derivative, and I had to remember that, no, I have that backwards, everything else is what’s derivative.
*You have no idea how excited I am to finally use my multiple literature degrees on Pharyngula. :-P)
I’m all in favor of a statue of me. In fact they should have one in front of every public building, and this picture in every school. :-)
hyrax #31
You need to understand how pulp writing was done. Writers were paid by the word, had incredibly short deadlines, and had editors who were far more interested in quantity than quality. It’s rather amazing that any of it is still in print today. I have a western written by Edgar Rice Burroughs where he actually forgets who the bad guys were and ends up in the latter parts of the book with an entirely different set characters being described as committing a murder than he did in the early part of the book .
Pvelkjo wrote:
We are having this discussion precisely because it isn’t bearable, for a significant number of people.
Lovecraft founded a subgenre, perhaps: but the World Fantasy Award isn’t specifically for works in that subgenre. Fantasy as a whole is much larger than that, and doesn’t have a specific founder. The award doesn’t need to depict a specific human, or a human at all–the Nebula award depicts a nebula, the Hugo a rocket.
That’s pretty much exactly how I feel about Lovecraft. It took me several re-reads of the ending of “The Shadow over Innsmouth” to realize that it’s supposed to be presented as a bad ending.
OTOH this is coming from someone who’s a huge Lovecraft Mythos fan. In some ways, even, I think I get more out of it because of having such a dissonance of values with the original material and its creator. Mieville’s “writing behind his back” is an excellent way to put it. His writing reflects an understanding of the world that is twisted in some ways that are fascinating to me, because I can see just enough of an understanding of the universe that I can appreciate, embedded in a worldview entirely made of fearful parochialism. It helps me understand people better.
Huh. I seem to have more feels about this than I thought. Maybe I should draft my own damn blog post about the matter.
That said: fuck yeah they should use a Cthulhu idol instead, it’s even in the story, sheesh! I don’t know why anyone would want this boring-ass old human jerk’s face instead.
@moarscienceplz 33: Oh, I understand how pulp writing was done! (I did my graduate work in 19th and early 20th century fiction.) I admit my chosen descriptive “hacky” wouldn’t appear in a scholarly description of his work, but it really does fit his situation. Lovecraft is mostly notable among his peers for latching onto those few very distinctive adjectives and ideas. If he overused less exotic words, like say, “crimson” or “enormous,” it wouldn’t be nearly as glaring, but something like “cyclopean” really sticks out.
The best and most helpful writing tip I ever received came from Dorothea Brande – a racist, nazi-sympathising person who worked for a racist, nazi-sympathising journal and was married to the racist, nazi-sympathising editor of the whole pile of shit.
I use the tip often and I recommend it. I don’t recommend the book I took it from, though. Instead, I make a point of mentioning that Brande was a flaming racist monster and that using her tip brings with it the obligation to write only things that will make her rotate in her grave and wish she never ever put that book somewhere where actual human beings could get a hold of it.
Regarding the bust, I think it should be changed. And personally, while I enjoy aspects of the world Lovecraft designed, his racism is everywhere in his fiction, his xenophobia, his dehumanising tendencies, so I can’t read it and still feel like a person.
I think that we need authors to re-invent Lovecraft’s world, keeping the intriguing stuff and replacing the racist shitpiles with things that might still make the reader gag, but in a good, not racism-related way.
We also need people to acknowledge the racism. I saw this documentary about Lovecraft where they excused his racism as ‘that’s how people thought back then’. Racist people, you mean.
Damn, how could I forget mentioning this!
Welcome to Nightvale is a story podcast that takes Lovecraft’s world and peoples it with a diverse cast – race, sexuality, species, gravitational qualities… – that’s a haven for all sorts of marginalised people.
Needless to say that the fandom is still largely racist as fuck, even though the makers put so much love into their non-racist story world.
I swear, if Lovecraft hadn’t been such a racist, lovcraftian fiction wouldn’t draw so many racist listeners/readers.
I echo all the sentiments here–Lovecraft had truly troubling and awful opinions, yet his contributions cannot be overlooked. I would favor renaming the award (and giving it a more neutral symbol) to something that acknowledges the man, but is not directly representative of him–the “Lovecraftian Fiction” award, to name a terrible example. I also think that people often think that it’s hard to find the racism in Lovecraft’s works precisely because it is those works wherein the racism is far more subtle that have survived much better (see Call of Cthulhu, At the Mountains of Madness, etc.)
My real bugaboo here is those who claim he was a terrible writer. I could not disagree more. He was a unique and odd stylist, but it served his purpose. Those congealed agglomerations of obscure adjectives helped create the otherworldly, uncanny atmosphere he sought. It’s certainly possible to dislike the style, but in my opinion (which is valued exactly as you might think) Lovecraft was a writer who chose his style for a particular effect, and I think it works. Then again, maybe I’ve got Nyarlathotep Stockholm Syndrome.
Hyrax #31
I think non-Euclidean means what Lovecraft uses it to mean. Frankly I still find the idea of parallel lines crossing slightly disturbing. Cyclopean I had to look up (at the time – actually I’m a bit lazy and don’t usually bother looking up the first few times, unless it’s on an e-reader because it’s so absurdly easy), but I think it’s used appropriately in the stories I’ve read. I think Lovecraft pretty much popularised Eldritch. If he hadn’t used such weirdly specific words, it wouldn’t have had the same effect.
I’m ok with a statue of Cthulhu, assuming the artist is working from a design and not from a recurring nightmare.
@18 briank:
From all I know, Samuel Clemens (as the name is spelled) was critical of racism in his time, even if he might fall short by modern standards. But if you want to hold Thomas Jefferson to account as the regressive slave-trade promoter that he was, instead of the champion of equality he is imagined to be, who would be against that?
I know I’ve been pointing out flaws in HPL’s writing, but I actually am a fan! I enjoy every squamous and eldritch horror. To @athorist’s answers, I do agree that the words are used appropriately in context– well, most of the time, I’ll still argue about some of the “non-euclidean”s– and they’re definitely effective.
I left this personal bit out before, but the first time I read “The Call of Cthulu”, I was reading it before bed. My last thoughts before sleep were along the lines I was outlining before, re: HPL being kind of hacky… and then I fell asleep, and I had confusing nightmares. Nightmares full of terrors hidden out of sight and darkness and drowning. When I woke up, I had a new respect for the stories, and to this day I won’t read Lovecraft before bed. (I finished the story while sitting by a fountain on a sunny southern california day, in effort to surround myself with maximum cheeriness before facing the Great Old Ones again.) His talent lies in being just suggestive enough, I think, and letting your brain fill in the gaps.
ANYWAY I’m sorry for derailing the conversation into a debate about the literary merits of a racist’s work. Whether or not a person likes his prose is subjective, and not really the issue here. (I just love talking literature with smart opinionated people! I should go start some fights about books in the Thunderdome. :-P)
So? What was it?
I’ve always been fond of the theory* that the “heroes” of the Lovecraft stories (i.e. the bold anglo New Englanders) are what draw Cthulu and the other Old Ones to Earth and their (the heroes’) hatred of “lesser” races is what allows the Old Ones to attack using people of those races. I believe I could even find support for this theory in Lovecraft’s work.
*In the common usage, not the scientific usage, of the word “theory.”
Hmm…my biggest complaint about him is that he spends too much time telling the reader that it’s horrible, unspeakable, and awful without ever showing or even implying what is so horrible, unspeakable, and awful. Though I will acknowledge that there are exceptions. At least one exception is “The Color Out of Space”. I’ve always liked the line about “…nothing could bribe me to drink the new city water of Arkham.” Especially since it’s coming from the narrator who is at least partially responsible for the Arkham resevoir being built where it is. But Call of Cthulu itself left me saying “meh”.
Do it! I double dog dare you!
Love the stories, hate the writing, pity and feel contempt for the weirdly small-minded man, me.
I mean, who would credit that the guy who could conceive of The City of the Great Race and mindless hateful ancient gods would also be unable to recognise the basic humanity of people because their skin or features were different from his own? How do you imagine a greater universe, and alien species, and still think that the differences between any two humans are anything but Amazingly Fucking Small?
Change the statue. There are many ways to honour his stories without his ugly mug staring down its jawline at you.
Oh, and in no way is his racism ‘subtle’ in Call of Cthulhu. And Shadow Over Innsmouth? Try this: read Shadow again, only specifically imagine the Deep Ones and those becoming Deep Ones as having dark brown skin this time. Notice anything about their description? A certain subhuman ‘fishiness’? Prominent eyes, small ears, big mouths, large lips. It’s as subtle as a clue-by-four to the orbital bone.
Even for his time HPL was a notable racist and bigot. There’s no avoiding it, there’s just the endless feminist question: how can one be both a fan of problematic works and a good feminist? Which many better minds than mine deal with, so get googling on ‘being a fan of problematic media’.
pveljko
You know, at the end of this day, this is still the most stupid thing that came to my attention and given the day I had, that really means something. This man was a flaming bigot who endjoyed many privileges those he raged against were deprived of and in the end we should pity him instead of showing a bit of human decency towards the black authors who are reminded of their inferior status not only back in Lovecrafts’ days but in this very present day? This is so fucked up I cannot even.
Sure, he just deemed most of the human population to be not actually human, but let’s not talk too much about that.
This is patent bullshit. He attacked whole groups of people
The KKK dress-up is cartoonish, too. Do you think that they never induced anyone to be racist?
Also, are you god that you can know this, or what is your evidence?
You’re right, of course; no contradiction at all. But briank@18 thought he saw the opportunity for a good sneer. I must congratulate him, however, for not using the term “political correctness”.
I’ve never read Lovecraft – apart maybe from one or two short stories before I knew anything about him – not through any moral aversion, but simply because horror’s not my bag. But because a lot of out-of-copyright fiction is free on kindle, I’ve been reading quite a few Victorian novels in the last year or two, and the blatant prejudices there sometimes stick in the craw, even when the work has a lot to recommend it.
Put a bowler on top. Or a cheerleader. I would be proud to display either one of those on my bookshelf. ~TH~
“Time that is intolerant
Of the brave and the innocent,
And indifferent in a week
To a beautiful physique,
“Worships language and forgives
Anyone in whom it lives;
Pardons cowardice, conceit,
Lays its honours at their feet.
“Time that with this strange excuse
Pardoned Kipling and his views,
And will pardon Paul Claudel,
Pardons him for writing well.”
It’s a prize for fantasy, not racism, and it honours the best of Lovecraft, not the worst. Accept it on those grounds. The bad Lovecraft would be infuriated that a prize in his honour has been given to members of lesser races and bolshevists. The good Lovecraft would wonder whether he had been wrong in his views. Both are reasons for accepting it.
Now that is a good idea. Signed.
Francisco Bacopa @ 13:
Nnedi Okorafor is a woman.
Yeah, it’s simply a fact the man was racist. I knew that just from the first time I read his stories. My absolute favorite Lovecraft story is “The rats in the walls” (which has almost nothing to do with cosmic horror and is more an “unreliable narrator” story of someone quite possibly losing their mind), but even there the main character has a beloved black cat named… erm…. “Niggerman”. Yes, literally the worst possible name for a pet since “Heil Furrer, the ethnically pure Arian cat”. In fact, I understand that his publishers actually censored some of the more odious racist bits out of some of his stories. His wife was constantly chastising him for remarks on Jewish people (she was herself Jewish) and there’s a running thread in a number of Lovecraft stories about the horrors unleashed when (this is usually implied rather than directly stated) two different “races” “intermix” (the horrors? Apparently Hills-have-Eyes type monsters).
In other words, he wasn’t JUST racist, he wasn’t JUST a “man of his times” racist, he was racist even by contemporary standards! That’s pretty bad.
However, in spite of all of that, I just can’t not like “Rats in the Walls”. It’s STILL a good story, even if I would prefer a version that changed that darned cat’s name (maybe to “Blackie”, a somehow less offensive name), and heck, I still enjoy the occasional “cosmic horror” tale inspired by the man’s works. I’d say it’s a beast apart from Wagner, because music without lyrics can’t actually SOUND antisemitic, so one ignorant of the composer can be entirely forgiven for not knowing anything but “I sure liked that ring song I just heard on the radio”. On the flip side, there’s really no getting around the racist parts of Lovecraft’s books. I’ve got an uncanny knack for “missing the point” and reading a work of fiction with my OWN interpretation, the authorial intent be damned! However, it sort of inserts itself unbidden no matter how generous my interpretation of some of his stories (or some parts of his stories). The best I can hope to do is say “This main character is a racist, so that’s yet another character flaw, WELL WRITTEN IMAGINARY VERSION OF Lovecraft!”.
However, and this is important. Knowing this uncomfortable aspect of these books, it behooves everyone who reads them to be careful who they recommend it to, or who they play movies about them around, without first letting them know in advance what they’re in for. I give everyone this warning when I recommend some Lovecraft now, and that’s basically what I feel is the least one can do. My opinion? Go ahead and enjoy what you can of Lovecraft’s work. Appreciate the writing talent, maybe even some of his personal demons if you care to read up about it, while still hating the negative views. No one is a monolith, so we can safely say these things. However, any talk about him or his works needs to basically come with a content warning. I think that’s a fair tradeoff.
Wagner, well maybe. Again one can be excused for having NO idea that the melody was written by a bigot, because it’s a melody, not Mein Kampf (which I think was a rock opera back in the 70’s). However, if you do know, it’s probably a good idea to let people know what they’re in for if you want to talk about the composer himself.
Well, as for award shows, go far enough into the future and every last one of us will tend towards moral horribleness. I think that’s probably true. There’s going to be something you or me or Jessie Jackson has said that’ll ultimately prove to have been terribly offensive to some as-yet-culturally-unknown group, one that’ll turn out to have far larger numbers than anyone might have predicted, had their sphere of consciousness even been capable of grasping that group, and will seem to be simply ignorant biased close mindedness, because it WILL be that, it will literally be BECAUSE we are ALL of those things at that time, and someone representing that group in the future will detest having that reward.
Well, guess what? That’s exactly the way it should be. Once it’s found out, effort should be made. Does this mean no award show can ever dedicate their awards to the memory of specific influential people in the field being awarded ever again? No, I wouldn’t say that. An Elvis impersonator award show should probably keep their statue looking like Elvis, because that’s more or less what that award show is all about, and anyone up for an award has most certainly already come to terms with whatever moral failings Elvis had (or will eventually be shown by the culture to have had). Heck, maybe it’s okay to keep weird cartoony Lovecraft head as your trophy in general, but as a price to pay, needing to keep a less offensive backup option for basically anyone who asks for it or seems extremely likely to prefer an alternative. Maybe a bust of… a quill? Writers tend to use quills in a lot of awards is what I’m saying.
So, back then black people hadn’t yet been invented?
@Giliell 54: That’s a problem I have with the “people were ALL racist back then!” I’d be curious how many African-Americans in 1912 agreed wholeheartedly with the linked poem, for example. Or don’t they count as “people”?
I don’t think that replacing it with another author is really necessarily worth it. I mean, if you are choosing a classic author, the pervasive racist views of the time are unlikely to have missed them. Sure, you might find someone whose racist views are not so well recorded, but is that really the best way by which to choose the author?
It seems to me that the issue isn’t so much Lovecraft’s name, or even his work (which admittedly sometimes betrayed the author’s bigoted views). Rather it’s Lovecraft’s FACE that is the problem. Don’t change the name. Change the shape of the award! Why not replace Lovecraft’s face with his well known monster character for which his FANTASY literature is so beloved?
*Looks back through the comments*
Oh it’s already been suggested. Well that settles it then. It shall now be the Cthulu award. YAY!
@Hyrax
African-Americans only don’t count as racist because they were an oppressed minority. (Which is the reason why well-received classic African-American authors from that year will be tough to track down, and certainly why their names will be less well-known.)
Even those, or perhaps especially those, who were at the butt of the racial discrimination of the time would inevitably be affected by the attitudes of the time. There may be exceptions to this. People who saw that black and white were all simply human beings and who could rise above the cultural differences which must have seemed insurmountable at the time. But while that would make them very great figures indeed, surely this award is for fantasy writing, not for being ahead of the curb regarding racial equality?
Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-
And a good day to you, too.
As I said. Staggeringly racist. Beyond dispute.
Yes. Is this odd? What would you rather be? The discriminator, or the discriminated against? Is it a good thing to be a racist? I mean, yes, fight against living bigots, obviously, but not because we will outhate them and through our abhorrence achieve victory. Or because some purity-culture righteousness demands it of us. Fight them because fighting them means more equality, better life for more people. Lovecraft is dead. What use is it to hate him? I think the most human thing to feel would be pity. Sad small mind. Fear pressing in on him: fear from without—he feared the other as much as he hated it—and fear from within—contamination, impure blood, diminishing. It must have been hell. Of course I pity him.
Instead? Well, yes, I guess I don’t pity them. Pity implies I think less of them. Which I do not. I feel sorry for them, of course. They are put into a difficult position through no fault of their own, but rather through a failure of society and of breadth of mind. It is an ill thing, and it is good to fight it. No contention on that score. Obviously no contention. How does showing ritual contempt for a sad, dead man help with this cause?
Also, I am staggered by how profoundly uncharitable one must be to interpret what I wrote as ‘Lovecraft is the victim here.’ Quite clearly, that’s not the case.
Clearly.
Did you miss the part of my post—the start of it, in fact—where I described him as staggeringly racist? Or his opinions as odious? His opinions on everyone in the world not a ‘Nordic’ are reprehensible. Odious. Wrong. Wrong-headed. That was never in dispute. We can talk more about it, certainly. What purpose do you suspect that will serve?
I meant physically. He did his hating in the privacy of his narrow mind or on the page. His opinions were, as I said, wrong, and hideous. But holding a wrong and hideous opinion is not, in itself, a crime.
Also: I asked for forbearance due to my imperfect grasp of idiomatic English. I see I am to get none whatsoever. Would it have been too much work to make sure of my meaning before assuming that it was consistent with the most uncharitable possible interpretation of what I wrote?
I will apologize here. My meaning was unclear and my reasoning poor. I said unlikely, but that rather implies that I have evidence one way or another. And, clearly I do not. It’s hard to even imagine what such evidence might look like. Therefore I was mistaken in writing what I did in the way I wrote it.
So I will say instead that I regard the idea that racists get their racism from obscure[1] pulp writers with incredulity. Indeed, much the same incredulity I feel towards the idea that video games cause people to become violent. I also regard with incredulity the notion that Ezra Pound turns people fascist. History shows that he failed to do so even with his favorite pupil, after all, and they ended up on quite opposite sides after WWII.
I have nothing but intuition to back this incredulity up—which is to say I have nothing to back it up with—but I will point out again that this whole blog seems to be full of people who have read Lovecraft and have managed to come out of the experience no more racist than they were before.
[1] Outside of geek circles, Lovecraft is fairly obscure, after all.
Briank:
Have you actually read Twain’s work, or are you just trying to be argumentative here?
Yes, Huck Finn uses the “N” word. It would be implausible for him to do otherwise; it’s how people in his setting talked. But a major theme of the story is that after spending time with Jim, Huck comes to respect and sympathise him, to the point where he can’t condone keeping Jim as a slave, and decides to help him escape even though he believes he’ll go to hell for it. By contrast, HPL’s characters are more likely to find that sort of sympathy for alien beings (cf “Mountains of Madness”) than for blacks.
Yep, Poe was racist (and unlike Twain, with less to redeem it) but it’s still not a near-constant theme in his work the way it is with HPL. Most of Poe’s work simply ignores non-white people; Lovecraft invokes them frequently as forces for evil.
You’re being facetious, but – well, why not? Jefferson has been honoured for two hundred years for whatever good he did in his life. Why not move on and celebrate somebody more recent, somebody who didn’t keep human beings as chattels? Surely there must be somebody?
Let’s not forget, as well as owning slaves, Jefferson raped at least one of them. It seems pretty clear that he was the father of at least some of Sally Hemings’ children, in a context of massive power imbalance – even in France, where legally she was a free woman, he had the leverage of her family back at home to hold over her.
fatpie42:
I find it interesting how many people think that would make it okay, and that it’s a better idea than replacing Lovecraft with Octavia Butler. I also find it poorly thought out and highly disappointing.
The “Cthulhu” thing is a kind of shibboleth, isn’t it …
@ CatieCat 145
“How do you imagine a greater universe, and alien species, and still think that the differences between any two humans are anything but Amazingly Fucking Small?”
One thing I noticed reading HPL (which other people have also commented on) is how the racism underlies a lot of his work. I’d go a step further and say that not only deeply informs his work as a whole, but, especially, is a crucial part of the horror at its center. He crafted a mythos where humans were a vanishing spec of sanity in a universe of evil and madness–and not just any humans, but white humans in particular. All nonwhites (and even whites from the “wrong” countries) are symptoms of encroaching darkness, degeneration, and impurity.
To put it another way, the reason he could imagine vast alien worlds and not see the minute differences between different kinds of humans is that his whole mythos is based on utter terror at anything even remotely alien. He turned a cloistered fear of everything and everyone he didn’t understand into a successful horror writing career.
(A disclaimer that I don’t think this excuses the racism in his writing, just helps explain it.)
It’s a good point, Goblinman, and I think you’re right that his racism permeates the very ideas themselves. It’s a bit weird that I like his stuff, honestly, because I’m as much of a xenophile as he was a xenophobe. The more people are different from me, the more interesting I think they are. If they were putting together a first-contact team and needed a fat, aging, and somewhat disabled talented polyglot and indifferent linguist* who loved the very idea of aliens, and was excited at the idea of meeting them? I would be WAY up that list. Even in Lovecraft’s universe.
* And really, don’t we all? Huh? Don’t we all really need an indifferent linguist and talented polyglot? Someone? Anyone? Okay, I’ll just sit down over here and wait, then, and if you do, just say, and I’ll get right on it, indifferently or talentedly as appropriate. Tangentially, I appreciate extended combustion of dried vegetation, as well as consuming heated water faintly stained with leaf residue, bovine infant feeding fluid, and large amounts of sweetener. I also favour taking exercise non-solitarily near large bodies of water.
I would like awards to be abstract and honor the genre, not individual people. Hero-worship, aren’t we learning how that sucks?
Pen:
I think using Octavia Butler, who broke ground both as a woman and a person of colour, would be an inspirational figure for an award. I wouldn’t view that as hero worship, I would view it as inspirational and a reminder to think and look outside the box.
@61 soogeeoh:
Shibboleth in that it’s hard to pronounce, and bad things can happen if you get it wrong?
Gee, thanks for nothing. Literally nothing. You wasted your post on a blog where evidence is important, and hand-waved like a creationist dismissing the million or so papers supporting evolution.
Whether those who post here, which tend to be intelligent and literate, aren’t snookered by the racism isn’t relevant. You have to demonstrate a majority of those who read Lovecraft weren’t affect in some way, good or bad. It can reinforce racist attitudes.
There’s no need to rename the award. The current physical award has an image of Lovecraft, but the award is the World Fantasy Award. (It’s not like Academy Awards/Oscars, which are called either more-or-less interchangeably.)
monad@66
:) I didn’t think of that
:( I was … in a critical and negative mood and my comment was in the context of Iyeska’s preceding mine. “it makes it okay, because C.” “everybody loves C.” “we be team C.”
m(_ _;)m
sorry
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
Is that honestly your interpretation of what I wrote? Really? In this case I am either worse at English than I thought or there is a certain ill-intent when parsing my words. You will note that the section from which you quote starts with an apology for having been insufficiently clear in my thinking. For getting things wrong. I was admitting fault and explaining that I erred in presenting my impression as being based on more than on what it is in actuality based. I shouldn’t have used the word ‘likely.’
I do not have evidence, no. Neither do you. Or, at least, you’ve shown none. Nobody on this thread has. I don’t think there’s evidence to be had. It’s also quite orthogonal to my central point, viz. that it is pointless to hate Lovecraft and that a more appropriate emotion is pity.
I’m sorry, but how do you expect me to provide evidence for this? What form would this evidence take? Even if I conduct a survey of all the racists in the world and find out a disproportionate number of them have read Lovecraft, it still proves nothing. They could be drawn to racist themes, after all. If I find people who’ve never read Lovecraft and make some read Lovecraft and then provide an implicit association test for them, I will be at best showing a temporary effect. You are demanding evidence which I cannot hope to provide.
Now, if I regarded your words with as little charity as you regard mine I might do something odious and compare you to a creationist asking for a crocoduck. Well except here via apophasis. Apologies. Couldn’t resist.
Shall I ask you for evidence that Lovecraft’s work engenders racism? Do you have any? You certainly didn’t offer any on this blog that, you say, is so heavily focused on evidence.
I can point out that it is obvious that reading Lovecraft can fail to cause racism in some people. Could we, perhaps, try to inculcate this quality in people—by education, or in the specific case for providing context for Lovecraft’s work—rather than wasting our time hating and ritually castigating someone long dead? Or do you think that we should try to discourage anyone from reading any of it?
If there is one person truly hurt, truly offended by the present form of the award then, by all means, change it. The shape of an award is not worth discomfort, let alone suffering. And I do not ask that this hurt be proven to me. Just stated. I don’t imagine I can argue against someone’s feelings, nor do I think I am justified in questioning in whether they are justified.
But if it is merely reminiscent of ill things I do not think we need to change it. The shape of the Hugo, after all, is very, very close to that of a V-2 rocket. That killed thousands and thousands more slaves perished in their construction. Some might find that offensive, after all. Oh, certainly, the shape is emblematic of the rocketship and of SF in general, but so’s Lovecraft of a certain type of story. We can’t purge everything that could be offensive from our culture. We would hardly have any left.
Let me sum up my attitude in simple terms: Lovecraft ought to be pitied, not hated; we ought to replace the shape of the award only out of a sincere desire to not hurt others, not out of puritanical obsession with correctness; the posters around here seem to interpret the words of others with an astounding lack of charity.
Honestly, the solution I’d most support (only slightly in jest) if we could somehow make it Ruthanna Emrys but from about thirty years from now when she’s properly famous and emblematic of a genre. Hers is an reinterpretation of Lovecraft even better than “Shoggoths in Bloom.”
Full disclosure: I enjoy much of Lovecraft’s work. I also enjoy great Schadenfreude because he’d be appalled at the diversity of excellent authors who have been inspired by that work,
soogeeoh @ 68:
I understood what you meant, and I agreed, for what it’s worth. All the people saying “oh yeah, Lovecraft wasn’t a shining example of a decent human being, so…Cthulhu for the win!” have made me *facedesk*. Pretty much no one in the thread has said one fucking word about Octavia Butler, or anything about how the sci-fi/fantasy genres are still resistant to women and POC authors, just a lot of shit about how much people love Lovecraft and how his bigotry should get a pass because reasons. It’s seriously disappointing, and that’s an understatement. I think if Butler were alive and reading this thread, she wouldn’t be surprised.
Nope, you should be able to look in places like this, and while the studies may not be Lovecraft per se, they may be other know rabid racist authors and their effects.
That is the difference between just expressing potential bullshit, and expressing a learned opinion. The former is found with apologists, not scholars.
pveljko @ 69:
I think you’ve spent a lot of words missing the point. This isn’t about offense as much as it’s about harm. We are still living in very bigoted societies, and the Sci-fi / Fantasy genres of writing have a very bad history when it comes to sexism and racial bigotry. The howling which started decades ago, over women and POC wanting to be heard and taken seriously has not ended. It’s diminished, to be sure, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t gone away, and it does not mean we shouldn’t be better, in terms of our attitudes and actions. Just because a lot of those with bigoted views now remain publicly quiet doesn’t mean those bigoted views aren’t all over the place. You should read N.K. Jemisin on this, and Foz Meadows. Pay attention to what marginalized authors say, rather than defending keeping the status quo in place.
This is part of what N.K. Jemisin said recently:
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls 72
Well, actually, I’d probably use my workplace’s library account in case the journal in question is not easily available. But, yes, I could do a literature search[1].
However I did not see a single citation on this thread, nor one reference to published literature. I still haven’t seen you substantiate your position with anything at all, for instance. Thus, I did not think such behavior was accepted of me. More importantly: I made one mistake for which I apologized and then reaffirmed that I had merely an opinion. Everyone else’s opinion seems to be getting an airing, so I thought it would be appropriate if I expressed what I felt. Was I wrong to think so? If so, why?
[1] That said, it is very hard to find a study showing the absence of an effect. And absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, after all. Further, the drawer effect (a prestigious journal is hardly to publish a study which concludes “Nope. Nothing here. Sorry.”) means that useful data could be gather dust because it is not interesting. I did actually do a preliminary search, out of curiosity, and while there’s a lot about Lovecraft and racism, nothing is about how he causes racism. I also found “How Anecdotal Accounts in News and in Fiction Can Influence Judgments of a Social Problem’s Urgency, Causes, and Cures” which I had heard about before, but that doesn’t really fit perfectly, and besides, if you read the abstract you’ll see it showed a temporary effect as these studies generally do (because it’s hard to do longer studies and keep them properly controlled and blinded, of course, borderline impossible).
Iyeska, flos malum @73
With respect, I do not think I have. At least not entirely.
First: My absolute main point is that pity, not hate, is the suitable response to Lovecraft’s deplorable racism. That’s what this is about for me.
Second: On the subject of if we should change the statue or not I do not have terribly strong opinions. I am perfectly open to being convinced that we should change it immediately. And it would be easy, too.
However, I am uncomfortable about changing it to spite a dead man, or to satisfy some odd urge for puritanism and overt moral rectitude. You mention a problem in the SF fandom. This problem exists. I do not dispute it. Even in the slightest. I only ask: will changing the statue help, and if so how?
If you suggested we rally against a living Lovecraft using his current popularity to attack N.K. Jemisin, then by all means, I am with you. If you want us to try to read more authors from traditionally disenfranchised groups, yes, that makes perfect sense. Scholarships for the disadvantaged? Obvious. (Actually there should probably be one for sending someone to Clarion, is there?)
But this? This seems like it expends a great deal of social capital—people, perfectly non-racist people, won’t like the change for all manner of reasons[1]—and for so very little gain. Or is it a lot of gain, and I’m missing it?
[1] Mostly because people don’t like heavy-handed education. Just human nature.
CaitieCat @63
I am so totally going to create a new character card for my Arkham Horror game using that.
Hell, I think if you asked Lovecraft (after raising him from Ye Essential Saltes, of course), he’d almost certainly want the award to be Cthulhu rather than himself.
After all, his best stories (Colour out of Space, Shadow out of Time, At the Mountains of Madness) draw their power from the utter insignificance of humanity in the grand scheme of things. Why should a statue of a mere human be used to represent such horror?
On his racism, it is a pity how thoroughly it pervades his writing, because some of his stories really are quite good, but they need serious trigger warnings.
First, I’d like to drop a link to Ruhanna Emrys .
Next, while it looks to be an unpopular opinion, I’m afraid I have to agree with pveljko. Howard was rather pitiable. He lived his life in fear, and suffered for it. Really, I suppose we have to argue over a deeper topic here – whether or not one should feel hate. I really don’t think one should. Of course, I don’t beleive in free will, so hating someone for their actions is kind of pointless. You can conden their behaviour, and encourage them to behave differently. If you think it’s the best possible option, you can kill them for their actions, though I’d advise you to be very careful about that kind of thing.
This is of course, only a small part of whether or not we should keep lovecraft’s face of the award. On that, I’m undecided. I think it really hinges on what message you wish to send. On one hand, lovecraft was a very influential writer. On the other, he was really racist, and it would be nice to see greater diversity among honored literary figure, instead of rows upon rows of white old men. So I dunno about that.
Angle @78
Thank you for the support. I will admit, I did not expect my comment to be so disliked. And, yes, diversity is good. I’d prefer to see more diversity in best-selling authors over diversity in the subject of statuettes, of course, but I don’t see why we can’t have both with just a bit of effort. I’m just dubious that forcing the issue here and now is the best possible use of limited social capital. I could be wrong, of course.
And Ruthanna Emrys is absolutely brilliant, though your link to her work is, ah, somewhat less so. :)
pveljko:
Oh FFS. It will help by acknowledging that societal change has taken place. It will help by openly acknowledging that women and POC have not only made significant contributions, they continue to do so. It will help by openly acknowledging that bigotry is not a good thing, and that awards should not reflect open bigotry. It will help by providing encouragement, enabling, and inspiring more women and POC authors. It will help by embracing inclusiveness, diversity, and empowerment. It will help by making a statement that bigotry will not be celebrated, no matter how much people might like a storyteller’s stories.
Also, to both you and Angle – has it crossed your minds that you are looking for confirmation bias? Has it crossed your minds that you aren’t seeing things clearly because of your privilege?
I have in my hand, a piece of paper…
Iyeska, flos malum @80
I remain unconvinced. Or, rather, unsure that what you claim will affect matters to the extent that the expenditure of social capital incurred would be justified.
But I don’t know enough about this to argue well about it. I will read what you write as ‘to people who are sufficiently different from you this means a lot more than you can easily imagine’ and I’ll believe you. My objection—hell, it was never really an objection—my ambiguity is withdrawn.
On my (and it would appear Angle’s) central point I am unmoved, however. To hate Lovecraft is useless and unkind.
As for ‘privilege,’ what on Earth do you propose to know about either of us that you can determine if we have privilege or not and in which social contexts? I’m pretty sure I’m not who you think I am. I’m not American, to start with.
Daz: Keeper of the Hairy-Eared Dwarf Lemur of Atheism @81
Analogy does not apply. I’m not suggesting inaction. I’m asking if this specific action is worth it[1]. Because it does have a cost. Every fight like this one drives people away. Not far away, just far enough that you can’t reach them effectively. Now, yes, you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, but I was asking if this was tapping them on the edge of the bowl or using a sledgehammer.
[1] And have, for lack of evidence, accepted that it is because people who are supposed to know better have told me it is.
Didja bother to read the link in the OP, pveljko?
Fuck your pity for Lovecraft. The man is fucking dead. Dead, dead, fucking dead, who fucking cares about some fucking white tears over how he didn’t appreciate the rainbow of life? This is about real people. Specifically, people like this:
I think your criteria of harm has been met, pveljko. If the winner of the fucking award has some problems with it, maybe you and Angle can shut your pieholes and listen to her.
I’m not even sure why there would have to be a big fuss over the statue. (Well, I do–bigots will whine and moan about it.) But changing it to Cthulhu, or some sort of generic inhuman monster, makes perfect sense: it honors HPL’s best known contribution to horror lit. (giant slobbery cosmic horrors) while moving the emphasis off the man himself.
And since the cosmic horrors were not particularly tainted by HPL’s racism (all humans were as the buzzing of flies to them, regardless of skin color), you don’t even have to worry about that aspect of his writing.
Now, changing it to a different person is a bit more complicated, mostly because there isn’t anyone obvious to use who wouldn’t have similar problems to HPL–most of the early horror writers were white men, certainly the influential ones, and they were generally racist, if not necessarily as horribly racist as HPL.
pveljko #82
I’m all for driving people away. People with repulsive views should be ostracised by and driven away from any community with aspirations toward being civilised. Their views and actions should cost them dearly.
Are you a fucking moron? Who writes shit like this and then several more comments laying bare how little he knows?
Look, asshole, if you don’t know anything, then shut your mouth while the adults talk. Go stick things in your navel, dumbass.
Shut up. You don’t understand the concept of ‘privilege’ as it’s being discussed here. We’ve all heard this one before. It’s not relevant. You’re about to jizz your pants fighting a concept you don’t understand. You’ll just look like a fucking asshole, and you’ll piss everyone here off.
As you said, you know nothing about this topic. So who has to justify anything to you in terms of costs and action? Shut the fuck up.
*As is typical, even though pveljko is a special snowflake who’s drunk deeply from the cup of life, he will spend several more comments defending the position he admits he doesn’t understand, showing just how important this cost/benefit analysis is to dullards like him.
Ah, that felt good.
pveljko, before you get all huffy and indignant and tell me to fuck off in response (or, more likely, some vacuous hundred-word version of ‘fuck off’) ask yourself if it’s worth it. Do you really want to drive me away? I’m your ally. We’re on the same side. There are worse people to fight, bigger issues to fry, right?
I’m curious about the alleged racism among the Welcome to Nightvale fandom. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist- but to be honest those people I know who listen (and I desperately need to catch up) are generally the same ones into rather eclectic and varied off-the-wall types of interests. My daughter went to a reading by the cast in Seattle, and you had the usual type of Seattle crowd. The narrator himself has a desperate homosexual crush on the visiting scientist, and the name “Carlos” doesn’t strike me as particularly white, though it could be of direct Spanish derivation. It doesn’t seem to be the kind of fiction that would draw a more conservative crowd.
Doug Hudson:
Are you braindead? Just oblivious? What? Cthulhu would not be better, FFS – it immediately relates to…Lovecraft. Every one of you fucking defenders of a bigot are seeing only what you want to see, nothing more From the OP: — there’s actually a petition to make the award honor Octavia Butler instead.
I’m not the asshole making claims. I’m asking you to back up your position with academic literature references. The fact that you don’t/can’t is telling on your honest and integrity, and utter and total lack of it.
So, Put up or shut the fuck up. That is what I would do in your position. Those who can’t put up, and can’t/won’t shut up, are by definition and experience liars and bullshitters. Your choice cricket.
pveljko:
And people like you don’t give a shit about women and POC being driven away or shut out, so pardon me if I won’t cry crocodile tears if you and those like you are driven off into a corner, where you can continue to embrace bigotry. #DeepFuckenRifts
Daz: Keeper of the Hairy-Eared Dwarf Lemur of Atheism @85
I cannot possibly agree with that. Holding certain correct views does not absolve you of the need for some basic human decency. And ostracism is one hell of a punishment.
However, that’s not even relevant. Some people don’t hold repulsive views. They are confused. Ill-informed. Afraid. Misguided. There’s a lot of reasons people can have for disagreeing with you aside from being evil. It’s those people that are easy to drive away. And you don’t really want to. Those are the people you need to win over. They do exist, you know. Many of them. Consider, after all, you’ve changed my mind on the subject of the statue. Admittedly, I agreed with you on nearly every point, so it’s not that much of a victory, but a modicum of reasonableness worked a lot better than, say, yelling at me incoherently.
Anthony K
I am sorry for whatever it is I have done to produce such vitriol. But I am glad that it at least made you feel good. I regret to say it did not have a similar effect on me.
pveljko:
I don’t care if you aren’t American, that has jack shit to do with privilege. And before you try to call foul, there are a lot of non-Americans in the commentariat, and yes, they are aware that privilege works the same fucking way outside of the States. Try to learn something:
Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is
The Male Privilege Checklist
White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack
No you’re not, liar. I told you what it was you did. You posted while being a fucking ignoramus. If you were actually sorry, you would stop doing that.
Anthony K:
But no one should actually have to know about the reality of bigotry, or the harm it causes, or microaggressions, or subtext, or anything else! Lovecraft, dude!
Huh? I’m not talking about packing people off to Siberia here. I’m simply saying that those who wish their community to be civilised should shun uncivilised people. I note you don’t spend any wordage showing such sympathy for those who are harmed by those uncivilised people I would punish so allegedly-harshly. Priorities: you is doing them wrong.
If they are willing to learn, fine. If not, show them the door. Let their views have consequences for them, rather than for those who their views would harm.
Welcome to Pharyngula. You’ll either learn to read the argument behind the anger, or you’ll probably drift off to somewhere more faux-civil where tone is more important than content.
Standard concern-trolling bullshit. People do evil shit when they’re confused, ill-informed, afraid or misguided. None of that means they’re not doing evil shit or that they’re merely “disagreeing” with anyone.
On the contrary, if they’re fucking confused, ill-informed, afraid or misguided enough, they may not even realize we want to drive them away.
Says you. What else do I want?
They need to take responsibility for their own confusions, inform themselves, examine their own emotions, and learn to guide themselves instead of playing follow the fucking leader. We don’t “need” to do that for them, because “we” can’t.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
I… uh. I apologized, and said quite clearly that I was expressing my opinion because I thought–being new here–that this is okay. Apparently it isn’t. Hence apology. Is there some other local custom I violated that I’m not aware of?
Iyeska, flos malum @91
I’m… not quite certain how that follows. My disagreement is on methodology, not goals. Given the viciousness of your response, I can only assume that I’m questioning a long-established wisdom. Well fine, then. If time has shown that maximum conflict is the way forward, consider my ignorance fought.
Iyeska, flos malum @93
Oh, I have some privilege. That’s pretty much a given for just about anyone. Very much so, given some demographics I belong to. Less so given others. But I am astounded at the alacrity with which you’ve stuffed me into a pigeonhole without asking about things first.
Iyeska, flos malum @95
And the way to teach me is to… tell me to go away? Loudly?
Daz: Keeper of the Hairy-Eared Dwarf Lemur of Atheism
This is a very peculiar way to wish someone welcome. So faux-civility or infinite anger? Ouch. Quite a choice.
consciousness razor
If you say so. I am willing to accept that that sort of approach is the way forward for greater diversity and equality (note: am assuming we both want that, sorry if I’m wrong). Before I was wrong. Apologies.
Iyeska @89,
If Cthulhu is too directly linked to HPL, then make it a generic cosmic horror, as I suggested in 84, that works as well.
Re: Octavia Butler, that’s a fine suggestion, but I was thinking of people who were “founders” of the genre of weird fiction. Which actually eliminates HPL, come to think of it–weird fiction really came into its own in the 19th century.
Oooh, how about Mary Shelley? Frankenstein is usually considered the first science fiction novel, but it’s certainly weird fiction as well, and had a tremendous impact.
Though I don’t have any particular reason to insist on naming it after a “founder”–there is certainly a powerful message in naming it after Butler. Who I need to read, come to think of it–does anyone have any suggestions for where to start with Octavia Butler’s works?
There’s a short story by Ruthanna Emrys called The Litany of Earth that’s written as a sort of inversion of The Shadow over Innsmouth set in the late 1940s. It’s the kind of story that would probably horrify Lovecraft, and I thought it a interesting example of taking his ideas and going places that he wouldn’t.
(Content note: Themes include genocide, racism, cultural appropriation.)
Link here.
pveljko
This is, by intent, a rude blog. [the rules] Complaining about tone will gain you no sympathy here. Complaints about tone are deflection tactics.
As regards faux-civility: If you’ve not learned by now that (a) anger is often justified and (b) it is possible to be as rude as fuck whilst still abiding by the letter of “civil speech,” then I’d love to know what rock you’ve been living under.
Doug Hudson:
And yet, you continue to go for anything or anyone you think is in that vein.
How nice of you to notice. In 1995, Octavia Butler became the first science fiction writer to receive the MacArthur Fellowship – she broke serious ground, and yet people are still maundering on about Lovecraft, and even in your last post, where you finally acknowledge her, you’re still trying to find people you think are more appropriate.
Yeah, gee, not suitable at all. *eyeroll*
Daz: Keeper of the Hairy-Eared Dwarf Lemur of Atheism
I don’t want sympathy. I wanted to talk about how sensible it is to hate Lovecraft. I failed at that goal. Badly.
I don’t mean ‘civil’ in the sense ‘ooh somebody said fuck.’ Merely in the sense that you read posts with at least an initial assumption of good intentions. A certain amount of charity. And I’ve found quite a few places, actually, where people can abide by the spirit of civility if not by its letter. I’m not sure that this particular style fits my character at all well. I’ve been lurking for ages—for the posts, if not the comments—and I think it is wise if I continue doing so.
Still, this has been educational, if profoundly uncomfortable.
pveljko:
You did not understand one fucking thing. Amazing. You should be astounded by the extent you’re willing to go to in defending bigotry. You should be astounded at how willfully indifferent you are about problems which don’t affect you. Privilege, you’re swimming in it.
Iyeska,
I have no particular investment in the name of the award; my interest is in the history of the genre more than anything. My idle musings were not intended to denigrate Octavia Butler, and I apologize for doing so.
What would you recommend as a good starting point for someone who has never read any of her works?
Thanks!
The late Herr Schickelgruber shared your opinion, Daz, Keeper of the Hairy-Eared Dwarf Lemur of Atheism (why not just call yourself nigel molesworth, the curse of st. custards?). H. P. Lovecraft probably did too.
Like I said, the award honours the good Lovecraft, not the bad. The reason it’s a Lovecraft and not a Butler Award is to acknowledge the history of fantasy. It has to be an historical figure. There are less horrible alternatives- MacDonald, Shelley, Hoffmann, Malory, even- who would emphasise that fantasy gas a long history without the baggage of Lovecraft’s other views, but the temptation to alter history in retrospect is foolish and may be dangerous.
pveljko #103
Yeah. My “initial assumption of good intentions” is severely limited when faced with a request to pity racists.
sc_77BlahBlah #106
If you can’t tell the difference between shunning people and genocide… What am I saying? Of course you can, you’re just a disingenuous prat. Fuck off.
Your intentions may be good, but your execution shows sympathies that don’t generate good intentions here, where we know all the dog whistles used by racists and racists sympathizers.
Come on, Daz: Keeper of the Hairy-Eared Dwarf Lemur of Atheism, you’re the one who said
If you can’t tell the difference between driving people away and shunning them, you aren’t thinking very carefully.
In the early, “moderate” days of his rule driving people away was Schickelgruber’s favoured policy. Genocide came later. If you prefer, driving people away from a community with aspirations toward being civilised was Lenin’s policy; murdering them was Stalin’s.
Come on,
There were two of them?
Those are historical figures which you say are less horrible … but what? This would somehow “alter history”? Who has this “temptation”?
sc_77BlahBlah #110
Do you really keep company with racists merely because you’re afraid that shunning them would start you on a slippery slope to advocating genocide?
Which word was hard to understand; “fuck” or “off”?
Yes.
There was the foolish and paranoiac racist and there was the author of powerful and chilling stories. The foolish and paranoiac racist is remembered because the other is still read.
…and, actually.
And people who are dubious about accepting a statue of Lovecraft as an honour because of his disgusting opinions would have less objection to receiving an award named after any of them.
It would alter history in that it would avoid considering the worse aspects of the history of fantasy and S.F.. Lovecraft is not the only example there has been of great writers with disgusting opinions.
Just about every human being who despises racism has that or similar temptations. At best, it is a desire to minimise the strength of racist attitudes in the past. At worst it is an attempt to pretend they were never there. I think both are dangerous and dishonest, however understandable they may be,
Mess:
I am gobsmacked by your idiocy. No, there wasn’t a ‘good’ Lovecraft and a ‘bad’ Lovecraft. There was one H.P. Lovecraft, and that person happened to be one nasty bigot. Just like there isn’t a ‘good’ #mess and a ‘bad’ #mess, there’s just you, being willfully ignorant and defending bigotry.
Actually, it doesn’t. It can be whatever people want it to be, and whoever they think represents the field well. It’s all magical and stuff, how people can change something if they wish, and they can even change something for the better! Amazing you haven’t figured this out yet.
Daz: Keeper of the Hairy-Eared Dwarf Lemur of Atheism :
mess:
:raises one eyebrow and smacks face into desk: That is not altering history.
And it’s not as if readers and authors don’t already know this, nope, not at all, nary a smidgen. Naturally, a good writer with a great story should be given an award that smacks her across the brain with nasty bigotry, every time she sees it.
Do everyone a favour and shut the fuck up, you’re giving stupidity an even worse name.
Easy! Have a statue of Cathulhu instead!
Look, if people weren’t driven to gibbering insanity by this picture a statue is not a problem.
There were a lot of nasty bigots around. Why is Lovecraft remembered when nearly all of them are forgotten? Is Lovecraft remembered because he was a nasty bigot, or is the fact that he was a nasty bigot remembered because he was something else as well?
You should read more carefully, Iyeska, flos malum:
You could argue that the early history of fantasy should be disregarded because of some of its associations and a Butler award would be a good starting point, but the history of fantasy as a genre would still be there.
In their fantasies.
But we can’t use magic to change something for the better retrospectively. What can happen is that what was vile and dangerous becomes ridiculous and trivial. That is slowly happening to Lovecraft’s racism. Contemporary racists wouldn’t use Lovecraft’s claims if they wanted to be taken seriously.
@62 Goblinman,
I wonder if it may be true that horror, as a genre, is more likely to attract writers (and readers) with reactionary views. Horror is all about getting down to the nastiest fears lurking in our subconscious — what Steven King calls the alligators that live in the swamps in the basements of our minds. They’re very, very primitive and knee-jerk, those fears.
Science fiction, on the other hand, is about imagining a future changed by the social trends of today. Whether that future is utopian or dystopian, the imagination that produces it is much more consciously directed than the fever dreams that give us horror.
I seem to remember one of the biggies — either King or Barker — talking about how his brother would lock him in the cellar with the lights off, and tell him through the door that things were coming up the steps for him. Poe had his demons, too. I wonder if you can be completely well-adjusted and still be a great horror writer. A good one, maybe, but not a great one.
I understand where pveljko was coming from, though his comments could have been expressed better. There’s something horribly pitiable about a man who has had his soul eaten up by fear.
But racism also made him something of a monster himself, didn’t it? And we mustn’t feel pity for monsters.
Really?
Writing a history of the U.S.A. without considering slavery and genocide would not be altering history?
The history of fantasy literature is trivial in comparison, but as in great, so in small. Remember it all.
..or is it a triumph over bigotry? Does it smack the ghost of H. P. Lovecraft across its ectoplastic brain?
So… in order that Lovecraft’s bigotry not be forgotten, the World Fantasy Award should use his image. As an award.
You want to remind people that he had “cartoonishly” racist views by presenting an image of him as something to be desired; a reward for writers who’ve done a good job. “Congratulations, you’re so good at writing, we’re going to present you with an image of a person who would have hated you!”
Like the Oscars, or the Grammys. We have rules, people: awards for artistry need to honour the good parts of historical figures or else the sun will go dark and our crops will fail. It’s a rule of nature. Black recipients of such awards just gotta deal.
One can remember all of it without plucking out the absolute worst of it to use as an award statue. One can, for example, remember slavery without putting the likeness of Nathan Bedford Forrest on military commendation awards.
We’re talking about an award, not a history book. Changing who the award honors doesn’t alter history. Snap out of it. This is a non-issue.
On the contrary, the demand that we have to pick a person who is properly historical easily ends up biasing us against minorities. By focusing on a time when people of color had so little chance to make an impact (not that the playing field is even now), we risk perpetuating the oppression of the past.
I think Butler would be a fine choice. I read Patternmaster a while back and it was great. She certainly has the writing chops and it would be a good message to send. Lovecraft is already so well enshrined in popular culture that there’s no risk that he’ll fall through the cracks and be forgotten. I see all upside and no downside.
LykeX:
QFT. As for the award, well, the World Fantasy Award was established in 1975. Octavia Butler’s first published story was Crossover in the 1971 Clarion Workshop anthology, so that would fit nicely too.
dexitroboper @118
That.
Is.
Awesome.
Anyone who refers to Adolf Hitler as “Schickelgruber”, a name he never bore, can be confidently written off as a complete numpty. Incidentally, you haven’t even spelled it correctly, sc_770d159609e0f8deaa72849e3731a29d: Hitler’s father was born Alois Schicklgruber.
Relevant to the general theme: Tom and Jerry Cartoons Carry Racism Warning. Note the fuckwitted comments by Prof. Frank Furedi, an all-purpose glibertarian rent-a-gob who doesn’t know what “censorship” is.
Never thought I’d see people defending Lovecraft in the area of racism–whether you like his stuff or not, there is no denying he held some truly vile beliefs about race, beliefs that color almost all of his work. Being white, I can hold my nose, skip over the racial stuff, and still enjoy HPL, but expecting everyone to do the same is ridiculous.
This is not a good hill to die on–Lovecraft is truly indefensible when it comes to race. I advocated Cthulhu up above because I felt (and feel) that Cthulhu, as a concept, has transcended his creator, but, again as a white guy, I’m not the one that HPL was saying was sub-human, so I’ll defer to those more directly offended against.
On a more constructive note–suggestions for Octavia Butler stories? Or Lovecraftian style authors minus the horrible racism?
Uh, no. The paranoiac racist is remembered because he was the SAME PERSON.
These “separate the art from the artist” dilemmas tend to fall into two categories. One is the “this guy murdered his wife, but he also made amazing furniture” kind, where the fame-worthy qualities are unrelated to the person’s bad points. The other is “this guy murdered his wife and made amazing furniture out of her bones”, where their personal failings colour their art. HPL is definitely in the second category: his racism permeates the stories he tells.
Acknowledging historical racism is a worthy cause. The idea that we need to do it by putting HPL’s face on a trophy that gets awarded every year is just ludicrous.
Incidentally, can somebody explain to me why Octavia Butler isn’t “historical”? Is she from some non-canonical alternate past that’s been retconned out of existence?
Oh, we’re naming it after R. L. Stevenson now?
I am finding sc_770d159609e0f8deaa72849e3731a29d’s arguments so vacuous as to be unworthy of argument. Nobody is suggesting that Lovecraft should not be read. Nobody is suggesting that the less-savory elements of his work should not be discussed; in fact, we have spent over a hundred comments discussing them. This blog is actually, you know, not private: it’s readable by anyone with access to an internet connection. This is an actual discussion of Lovecraft’s problematic legacy right here that is not going to disappear if the World Fantasy Award is renamed for Butler or Shelley or LeGuin or anyone else who, despite their inevitable flaws, is at least not a blatant fucking racist.
I’m just not feeling the argument that if we don’t show our collective ass in the most conspicuous blue-butted baboonish way, we are somehow pretending to be assless.
pveljko
Are you fucking aware of the history of that phrase?
You mean like considering the harm a continued honouring of Lovecraft by keeping the awared and statue does to PoC?
Except, of course, when it’s being practised against women and racial and sexual minorities by creating an atmosphere that’s so toxic they can’t breathe. Got you!
++++
I can’t resist this, I’m going full Goodwin:
Let’s create an animal welfare award in the name of Hitler. after all, it honours the good Hitler, who was a vegetarian, implemented the first animal welfare laws and loved his dog.
This is completely backwards. Not changing shit is denying the bad aspects because it means acting as if nothing happened.
Therefore we should use the names and images of genocidal slave-holders as aspiring examples? Ehm, I’m not quite sure if you understand that we’re talking about one of those awards you would actually like to get, not like the golden rhaspberries or something
Geoffrey Brent @132,
Since I may have unintentionally contributed to the “Octavia Butler isn’t historical” thing, let me clarify what I was talking about. I was thinking about the naming the award after one of the earliest writers in the fantasy / weird lit genre, which was largely developed in the 19th century (which would preclude HPL himself!) But that is a very narrow approach, and hardly required.
On a different note, it is entirely possible (and worthwhile) to acknowledge HPL’s undeniable influence without naming an award after him! Its the same reason we should take ol’ TJ off our money–not to mention Andrew Jackson, dear lord. Both of them were tremendously influential, and we need to recognize that (and even honor particular parts, such as the Declaration), but that doesn’t mean we should honor the individuals.
That’s what we have Timecops for, dummy.
Wildly OT:
Ye Olde Blacksmith @76, you absolutely MUST post the stats in the Lounge when you do. Or e-mail me the file if (as I’m guessing) you’re using Strange Eons to make the new cards? If you are, send me your CaitieCat character and I’ll send you my Torchwood set, you can playtest and see if you can recommend a way to fix Jack’s ability. I’m happy with the other four characters and their abilities, but Jack is (obviously) problematic as an AH character, and playtesting his ability is a big job.
/OT
Hasty Lovecraft-and-racism links (possibly redundant, but my computer is lookin’ at my funny and I don’t trust it):
From Unspeakable Vault”
And there are several bits, all on Lovecraft, some of which are on the currect racism-and-award question, here.
–
You have it the wrong way round, Geoffrey Bent. The World Fantasy Award, given every year, is a bust of Lovecraft. The topics under discussion are whether people should express their disapproval of Lovecraft’s racism by refusing the award or express their dislike of his racism while accepting it, and whether the award should be something else. Some people have suggested a bust of Octavia Butler, a sort of anti-Lovecraft.
When the awards were first made Butler was alive and young. She was decidedly contemporary. That was probably a problem for dome of the other people around.
The history of the history of fantasy fiction is curious: read a history of fantasy fiction and you’ll find references going back over two thousand years. People have a natural desire to make their interests historical and important. The term itself is very recent though- it’s possible that Lovecraft never knew he was writing fantasy.
The people who gave the first World Fantasy Award probably wanted someone respectable, famous and dead to represent them and thought Lovecraft fitted the bill. Mistakenly.
The dilemma is, do the World Fantasy Convention get rid of Lovecraft. given what they know now and the way people think now. or do they acknowledge that he was a pretty horrible man and that they wouldn’t have chosen him if they’d known more about him, but that his virtues as a writer of fantasy outweigh his faults and they plumped for him and must stand by their choice, however foolish it was? It’s also a reminder that well-meaning people can make foolish errors
…people should have been better than to model it after a godsdamnfucking racist.
I hope you’re better at cynicism than you are at history, Giliell
Hitler wasn’t a vegetarian and didn’t implement the first animal welfare laws. He may have loved his dog, but that’s the claim every PR rep puts forward for every politician.
Speaking of history, don’t you mean Herr Schicklgruber, as per your first post?
Anyway, I’d suggest you pay more attention to the point flying over your head, but it’s pretty obvious you’re doing some sort of bouffonesque performance art character here. As one actor to another: you should work more on your improv skills before staging your pieces in public.
just for your general education. I think you need some
“[b]Towards the end of his life[/b] Adolf Hitler followed a vegetarian diet…Dione Lucas, a chef at a Hamburg hotel patronised by Hitler prior to the war, claimed that her stuffed squab was a favourite of his.”
Albert Speer mentions Hitler’s fondness for Munich sausages.
It’s also been claimed that Hitler’s vegetarianism was a propaganda myth invented by Goebbels or a treatment for stomach ulcers. Both could be true.
sc_770d159609e0f8deaa72849e3731a29d, do you or do you not understand that Hitler being or not being a vegetarian is not the point of the comparison?
Make it a sausage-maker’s award in the form of a Hitler bust, if you like. It doesn’t change the point being made.
I happen to think that, when we are choosing who to honor by turning their image into an important award, unit of currency or other such, we should set the bar a little above the “not Hitler” notch.
Also, you are boring.
The victims of racism can’t not know it exists because they face it every fucking day of their lives, you dipshit. They don’t need a reminder when receiving a fucking award.
Geoffrey Brent (@59):
More like sarcastic, I think; is your detector in the shop?
****
I must say, ever since I first encountered Pharyngula, I’ve felt vaguely inferior because I’ve never read Lovecraft and know almost nothing about him or his mythos, which seemed to be common currency ’round these parts.
I feel a little better now.
****
Not for nothin’, BTW, but I’m mindful that being a citizen of the so-called “world’s last remaining superpower” is, in fact, a marker of my privilege… not that it’s anywhere near the only one.
You’re not alone, Bill, though Cthulhu references seem to be currency in a lot of geek/nerd circles outside of Pharyngula as well. Nonetheless, I remain uninterested in Lovecraft’s works.
Vaiyt:
Also, receiving recognition via an award should be a joy, it should be a celebration. It shouldn’t be something so upsetting that you need to reach out to another author in order to figure out what to do, and find out that previous winners weren’t happy about the award either.
Bill:
Decades ago, I gave up on Lovecraft. I think some of his ideas were interesting enough, but his writing…not so great.
Doug Hudson:
Depends on what you’re in the mood for, I think. Have a look here – click on any one book to read a small synopsis. Personally, I loved the Patternist series, which starts with Wild Seed. Or, start with Bloodchild and Other Stories, which are all shorts. I first read Bloodchild in the ’80s and that story never left me.
Bloodchild is a fantastic story. Just wonderful.
ledasmom:
Yeah, it is. I have the e-version of Bloodchild and other stories, and Butler wrote an afterword to each story. In the one on Bloodchild, she mentions how shocked she was that so many people thought the story was about slavery.
Also, Bloodchild is one of those stories that is seriously fun to talk about, especially in a mixed group, because women and men really view it differently.
This is the afterword to Bloodchild, coded because spoilers. To decode, paste @ rot13.com:
Vg nznmrf zr gung fbzr crbcyr unir frra “Oybbqpuvyq” nf n fgbel bs fynirel. Vg vfa’g. Vg’f n ahzore bs bgure guvatf, gubhtu. Ba bar yriry, vg’f n ybir fgbel orgjrra gjb irel qvssrerag orvatf. Ba nabgure, vg’f n pbzvat-bs-ntr fgbel va juvpu n obl zhfg nofbeo qvfgheovat vasbezngvba naq hfr Vg gb znxr n qrpvfvba gung jvyy nssrpg gur erfg bs uvf yvsr.
Ba n guveq yriry, “Oybbqpuvyq” vf zl certanag zna fgbel. V’ir nyjnlf jnagrq gb rkcyber jung vg zvtug or yvxr sbe n zna gb or chg vagb gung zbfg hayvxryl bs nyy cbfvgvbaf. Pbhyq V jevgr n fgbel va juvpu n zna pubfr gb orpbzr certanag abg guebhtu fbzr fbeg bs zvfcynprq pbzcrgvgvirarff gb cebir gung n zna pbhyq qb nalguvat n jbzna pbhyq qb, abg orpnhfr ur jnf sbeprq gb, abg rira bhg bs phevbfvgl? V jnagrq gb frr jurgure V pbhyq jevgr n qenzngvp fgbel bs n zna orpbzvat certanag nf na npg bs ybir—pubbfvat certanapl va fcvgr bs nf jryy nf orpnhfr bs fheebhaqvat qvssvphygvrf.
Nyfb, “Oybbqpuvyq” jnf zl rssbeg gb rnfr na byq srne bs zvar. V jnf tbvat gb geniry gb gur Crehivna Nznmba gb qb erfrnepu sbe zl Krabtrarfvf obbxf (Qnja, Nqhygubbq Evgrf, naq Vzntb), naq V jbeevrq nobhg zl cbffvoyr ernpgvbaf gb fbzr bs gur vafrpg yvsr bs gur nern. Va cnegvphyne, V jbeevrq nobhg gur obgsyl—na vafrpg jvgu, jung frrzrq gb zr gura, ubeebe-zbivr unovgf. Gurer jnf ab fubegntr bs obgsyvrf va gur cneg bs Creh gung V vagraqrq gb ivfvg.
Gur obgsyl ynlf vgf rttf va jbhaqf yrsg ol gur ovgrf bs bgure vafrpgf. V sbhaq gur vqrn bs n znttbg yvivat naq tebjvat haqre zl fxva, rngvat zl syrfu nf vg terj, gb or fb vagbyrenoyr, fb greevslvat gung V qvqa’g xabj ubj V pbhyq fgnaq vg vs vg unccrarq
gb zr. Gb znxr znggref jbefr, nyy gung V urneq naq ernq nqivfrq obgsyl ivpgvzfabg gb gel gb trg evq bs gurve znttbg cnffratref hagvy gurl tbg onpx ubzr gb gur Havgrq Fgngrf naq jrer noyr gb tb gb n qbpgbe—be hagvy gur syl svavfurq gur yneiny cneg bs vgf tebjgu plpyr, penjyrq bhg bs vgf ubfg, naq syrj njnl.
Gur ceboyrz jnf gb qb jung jbhyq frrz gb or gur abezny guvat, gb fdhrrmr bhg gur znttbg naq guebj vg njnl, jnf gb vaivgr vasrpgvba. Gur znttbg orpbzrf yvgrenyyl nggnpurq gb vgf ubfg naq yrnirf cneg bs vgfrys oruvaq, oebxra Bss, vs vg’f fdhrrmrq be phg bhg. Bs pbhefr, gur cneg yrsg oruvaq qvrf naq ebgf, pnhfvat vasrpgvba. Ybiryl.
Jura V unir gb qrny jvgu fbzrguvat gung qvfgheof zr nf zhpu nf gur obgsyl qvq, V jevgr nobhg vg. V fbeg bhg zl ceboyrzf ol jevgvat nobhg gurz. Va n uvtu fpubby pynffebbz ba Abirzore 22, 1963, V erzrzore tenoovat n abgrobbx naq ortvaavat gb jevgr zl erfcbafr gb arjf bs Wbua Xraarql’f nffnffvangvba. Jurgure V jevgr wbheany cntrf, na rffnl, n fubeg fgbel, be jrnir zl ceboyrzf vagb n abiry, V svaq gur jevgvat urycf zr trg guebhtu gur gebhoyr naq trg ba jvgu zl yvsr. Jevgvat “Oybbqpuvyq” qvqa’g znxr zr yvxr obgsyvrf, ohg sbe n juvyr, vg znqr gurz frrz zber vagrerfgvat guna ubeevslvat.
Gurer’f bar zber guvat V gevrq gb qb va “Oybbqpuvyq.” V gevrq gb jevgr n fgbel nobhg cnlvat gur erag—n fgbel nobhg na vfbyngrq pbybal bs uhzna orvatf ba na vaunovgrq, rkgenfbyne jbeyq. Ng orfg, gurl jbhyq or n yvsrgvzr njnl sebz ervasbeprzragf. Vg jbhyqa’g or gur Oevgvfu Rzcver va fcnpr, naq vg jbhyqa’g or Fgne Gerx. Fbbare be yngre, gur uhznaf jbhyq unir gb znxr fbzr xvaq bs nppbzzbqngvba jvgu gurve hz . . . gurve ubfgf. Punaprf ner guvf jbhyq or na hahfhny nppbzzbqngvba. Jub xabjf jung jr uhznaf unir gung bguref zvtug or jvyyvat gb gnxr va genqr sbe n yvinoyr fcnpr ba n jbeyq abg bhe bja?
” ubfgf”. Now that is the perfect word in the context, isn’t it?
You know you may have spent too much time on the internet when you don’t bother to open the rot-13 decoder.
I found “Bloodchild” in a horror anthology once. Didn’t understand why. It seemed such a sweet story to me.
ledasmom:
Yes! On more than one level, too.
Most everyone I’ve discussed it with considers it to be horror. Intense horror. I like horror, and like you, I didn’t class it as horror. Sci-fi, yes. I have had a good time in discussions though, because of the different ways women and men have reacted. Vg fnlf n ybg jura jbzra xvaq bs fueht bire gur jubyr tvivat ovegu fprar, juvyr zra ner qnza arne fcrrpuyrff jvgu ubeebe ng gur irel vqrn.
I thank you for the afterword; I had not read it before.
“Xenogenesis” is more like horror to me. Still not horror, but it bothers me deeply in a way that “Bloodchild” doesn’t.
sc_770d159609e0f8deaa72849e3731a29d, whose handle I did not type out by hand:
*eyeroll*
Pro tip: if you’re not sure how to spell my name, you can copy and paste it from the top of my posts.
um, “what we know now”?
HPL never made a secret of his racial views. Although he expressed himself even more strongly in some of his correspondence, it’s impossible to read his stories without encountering racist sentiments aplenty. The fact that he was chosen in 1975 wasn’t because this information was hidden away, it’s because certain people didn’t care enough to make an issue of it.
“Dude, this car we built, it has a bad tendency to catch fire and explode.”
“Shit, we’d better fix that!”
“No, let’s leave it as a reminder that well-meaning people can make foolish errors!”
“Dude, we took a wrong turn back at Albuquerque. We’re headed in the wrong direction.”
“Shit, better turn the car around!”
“No, let’s keep going to completely the wrong place, as a reminder that well-meaning people can make foolish errors!”
…
If you really want to remind SFF fandom that people fuck up and do stupid things, there are far more effective ways to do it that don’t have the side-effect of discomforting the people we’re supposed to be honouring, and don’t risk being interpreted as an endorsement of historical racism.
I can’t be too hostile to poor old HPL. He was clearly quite severely mentally ill. He was paranoid and xenophobic. Both about “foreigners” or anyone who looked slightly different from him; not just black people, not just Italians, but famously Eskimos. (Huh?!?) And, most of all, he was deathly afraid of *fish*, for goodness sake. A whole lot of his stories are obsessed with his fear of being racially “tainted”… by being descended from *fish*.
And, of course, as HPL knew perfectly well, we ARE descended from fish.
HPL’s talent was in capturing that paranoid, afraid-of everything mindset and putting it on paper in a way in which people who *aren’t* paranoid can see that mindset from within. And I think that’s valuable. There’s also a reason why a lot of HPL fandom is focused around humor, because if you look at them from an outside, *sane* viewpoint, the fears are *ridiculous* — funny.
But it’s pretty bizarre and extremely inappropriate to use HPL’s likeness for the World Fantasy Award.
For a Horror Award, the likeness of a sad little man who was paranoid about everything and clearly living in unreasonable fear his entire life might actually be *quite* appropriate. But he has no real connection to the fantasy genre as it has developed, which has moved away from horror.
PZ, maybe you could have linked to the actual petition? http://www.change.org/p/the-world-fantasy-award-make-octavia-butler-the-wfa-statue-instead-of-lovecraft
The petition author, Daniel José Older, has been fighting a certain pattern in the media to quote second hand interpretations of what he and Okorafor have said about the petition and Lovecraft. Second hand interpretations done by *white* people about what people of color are saying.
Your link to the Guardian post repeats the problem.